PEMPETISYEN ANG JIMMY TJUN MIN 1. ) TJIANG GIOK MOY 2. ) ANG EILEEN 3. ) SRI SKUDAI SDN. BHD.

PEMPETISYEN ANG JIMMY TJUN MIN 1. ) TJIANG GIOK MOY 2. ) ANG EILEEN 3. ) SRI SKUDAI SDN. BHD.

Leave to cross‑examine was refused because the Petitioner failed to meet the heightened burden required in winding‑up proceedings: there was sufficient affidavit and contemporaneous documentary evidence to decide the petition, the proposed cross‑examination would likely only repeat affidavit averments and constitute a fishing expedition, and the late timing and absence of supporting documents undermined bona fides; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application and refuse leave.

Citation
JA-28NCC-200-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Petitioner: Ang Jimmy Tjun Min; First Respondent: Tjiang Giok Moy; Second Respondent: Ang Eileen; Third Respondent: Sri Skudai Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 February 2026
Case Number
JA-28NCC-200-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) / Application for Leave to Cross Examine in Winding Up Petition (interlocutory)
Outcome
Enclosure 38 dismissed; leave to cross‑examine R1 and R2 denied
Legal Topics
Cross Examination on Affidavit, Order 38 Rule 2(2) ROC 2012, Winding Up Petition, Quasi Partnership, Burden of Proof, Fishing Expedition
Source Language
Malay/English
Company Law Civil Procedure Insolvency / Winding Up Cross Examination on Affidavit Order 38 Rule 2(2) ROC 2012 Winding Up Petition Quasi Partnership Burden of Proof +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ang Jimmy Tjun Min

Petitioner

Tjiang Giok Moy

First Respondent

Ang Eileen

Second Respondent

Sri Skudai Sdn. Bhd.

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) / Application for Leave to Cross Examine in Winding Up Petition (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cross-examination of R1 and R2 would advance the cause of justice
  2. 2 Whether cross-examination would amount to a fishing expedition
  3. 3 Whether the Petitioner has discharged the heightened burden in winding-up proceedings to justify cross-examination

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to cross‑examine was refused because the Petitioner failed to meet the heightened burden required in winding‑up proceedings: there was sufficient affidavit and contemporaneous documentary evidence to decide the petition, the proposed cross‑examination would likely only repeat affidavit averments and constitute a fishing expedition, and the late timing and absence of supporting documents undermined bona fides; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application and refuse leave.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 38 dismissed; leave to cross‑examine R1 and R2 denied

Orders

  • Enclosure 38 dismissed
  • Costs of RM3,000.00 awarded to First and Second Respondents (subject to allocator fees) to be paid by the Petitioner within fourteen (14) days from the Order